The video below is of a live-fire demonstration by the Indian Army of the Bofors FH-77B 155mm howitzer. While the howitzer is incredibly sophisticated and powerful, the whole demonstration looks like it could have been choreographed by the Monty Python troupe.
I thought that after all the politics of the past week my readers needed a laugh. Plus it involves a big gun!
I realize that the concept of shame is an old-fashioned one and that it seems out of place in the post-modern world. Thus, the attempt by the White House to shame the Congress into passing gun control comes across as both quaint and manipulative.
The latest instance is using the mother of one of the children murdered in Newtown to deliver President Obama’s weekly radio and Internet address. It has been released as a YouTube video and MP3 file in addition to the transcript below.
Remarks of Francine Wheeler
The President’s Weekly AddressHi. As you’ve probably noticed, I’m not the President. I’m just a citizen. And as a citizen, I’m here at the White House today because I want to make a difference and I hope you will join me.
My name is Francine Wheeler. My husband David is with me. We live in Sandy Hook, Connecticut.
David and I have two sons. Our older son Nate, soon to be 10 years old, is a fourth grader at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Our younger son, Ben, age six, was murdered in his first-grade classroom on December 14th, exactly 4 months ago this weekend.
David and I lost our beloved son, but Nate lost his best friend. On what turned out to be the last morning of his life, Ben told me, quite out of the blue, “ I still want to be an architect, Mama, but I also want to be a paleontologist, because that’s what Nate is going to be and I want to do everything Nate does.”
Ben’s love of fun and his excitement at the wonders of life were unmatched His boundless energy kept him running across the soccer field long after the game was over. He couldn’t wait to get to school every morning. He sang with perfect pitch and had just played at his third piano recital. Irrepressibly bright and spirited, Ben experienced life at full tilt.
Until that morning. 20 of our children, and 6 of our educators – gone. Out of the blue.
I’ve heard people say that the tidal wave of anguish our country felt on 12/14 has receded. But not for us. To us, it feels as if it happened just yesterday. And in the four months since we lost our loved ones, thousands of other Americans have died at the end of a gun. Thousands of other families across the United States are also drowning in our grief.
Please help us do something before our tragedy becomes your tragedy.
Sometimes, I close my eyes and all I can remember is that awful day waiting at the Sandy Hook Volunteer Firehouse for the boy who would never come home – the same firehouse that was home to Ben’s Tiger Scout Den 6. But other times, I feel Ben’s presence filling me with courage for what I have to do – for him and all the others taken from us so violently and too soon.
We have to convince the Senate to come together and pass commonsense gun responsibility reforms that will make our communities safer and prevent more tragedies like the one we never thought would happen to us.
When I packed for Washington on Monday, it looked like the Senate might not act at all. Then, after the President spoke in Hartford, and a dozen of us met with Senators to share our stories, more than two-thirds of the Senate voted to move forward.
But that’s only the start. They haven’t yet passed any bills that will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. And a lot of people are fighting to make sure they never do.
Now is the time to act. Please join us. You can talk to your Senator, too. Or visit WhiteHouse.gov to find out how you can join the President and get involved.
Help this be the moment when real change begins. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.
While I feel sorrow for the family, their grief at losing their son is not a reason to pass measures that are at once both ineffective in stopping another Newtown shooting and an infringement on the Second Amendment guarantees. If the White House and their fellow gun prohibitionists were really serious about trying to avert another Newtown, they would be looking at mental health issue and school security measures such as arming and training teachers.
To get a better perspective on grief and its misuse here, read Michael Bane’s post entitled “Riverdance in Blood”. I recommended it earlier this week and I’m doing it again. As he notes, the grief of the victims drives them to demand a solution to insoluble problems which is the case with Mrs. Wheeler above.
The CalGuns Foundation on behalf of itself and seven individual Californians is suing California Attorney General Kamala Harris over delays in the processing of firearms background checks. California has a statutory 10-day waiting period. However, the California Department of Justice has been instructing dealers in some cases to delay the release of firearms to their eligible purchasers.
From the CalGuns release:
The Calguns Foundation and 7 Californians Sue Attorney General Kamala Harris, DOJ Over Gun DelaysSAN CARLOS, CA – The Calguns Foundation has filed a lawsuit on behalf of seven California residents today against Attorney General Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, and DOJ Bureau of Firearms Chief Stephen Lindley. The case challenges the DOJ’s policy of requiring some firearm purchasers to prove their legal standing to take possession of acquired firearms and forcing them to wait beyond the statutory 10-day waiting period.
One plaintiff in the case, Daniel Schoepf of Long Beach, California, was denied his fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense even after DOJ told him that he was legally eligible to purchase and possess firearms.
In 1984, Schoepf was detained in Los Angeles County for having two tablets in his pocket that were later discovered to be common, non-prescription pills. The detectives subsequently released Schoepf and no charges were filed. In 2006, DOJ firearms section Program Manager Steve Buford sent Schoepf a letter stating that he was eligible to purchase and possess firearms; however, in 2012, DOJ reversed that position and instructed Schoepf’s local firearms dealer to hold back delivery of Schoepf’s gun.
“I know I’m not alone in this, that DOJ is wrongly denying many Californians their Second Amendment rights just like they are mine,” said Schoepf. “I’m not a criminal and certainly not a disqualified convict but am a law abiding citizen with my Second Amendment rights fully intact. They left me no choice but to fight this injustice in court.”
“Over the past year, the DOJ has been directing California gun dealers to delay the release of firearms to people eligible to possess them – sometimes indefinitely,“ said Jason Davis, attorney for The Calguns Foundation. “The DOJ simply has no legal authority to justify their policy.”
The DOJ claims that these delays are primarily due to lack of information in their criminal history databases. In a July 2011 Los Angeles Times article, assistant attorney general Travis LeBlanc said the DOJ’s criminal records database system was “shoddy,” with the ‘guilty’, ‘not guilty’, or ‘case dismissed’ disposition information missing for about 7.7 million of the 16.4 million arrest records entered into the database over the last decade – and presumably much more for older cases.
“In essence, the DOJ is relying upon their improperly-maintained database to deny the fundamental rights of individuals,” said Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “That policy is entirely unacceptable and we look forward to putting an end to it.”
The attorney for plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Victor Otten, agrees.
“Our clients follow the law and so should the DOJ,” said Otten. “The DOJ is gleefully enforcing a policy that deprives my clients of their civil rights. The arrogance of the Department to think that it can abrogate the Constitution and statutory duties set by the Legislature is very unsettling.”
“This case really underscores the value of our DOJ Watch program,” said Brandon Combs, Executive Director of The Calguns Foundation. “Attorney General Harris’s hostility towards some civil rights predictably resulted in a shift away from former Attorney General Brown’s correct application of the law – and we are here to hold her accountable.”
The lawsuit is entitled Schoepf, et. al. vs. Kamala Harris, et. al. A copy of the complaint may be viewed or downloaded at http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/cgf_dros-delay-complaint.pdf.
The description of California AG Kamala Harris in the title comes from President Obama’s inappropriate remarks made recently.
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) have announced they will be introducing the House version of the Toomey-Manchin amendment on Monday.
“I will be introducing, along with Mike Thompson [D-Calif.], basically the House version of the Manchin-Toomey bill on Monday or Tuesday at the latest,” the New York Republican said, referencing the bipartisan agreement on background checks reached this week between Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
He said the legislation will “replicate” what was agreed to by those senators, a bipartisan deal that expands background checks for commercial gun purchases, including those made at gun shows.
King noted that Toomey’s conservative credentials make it easier for House Republicans to vote for background checks.
In my opinion, Peter King is and has always been a big government statist type. Seeing him introduce a gun control bill is not a surprise as he has supported them many times in the past.
Thompson is a self-described Blue Dog Democrat and gun owner. Thompson says he is familiar with assault rifles as he carried one in Vietnam – over 40 years ago. While I thank him for his service, that was a long time ago.
He issued a statement yesterday hinting towards this House bill and applauding the Senate for passing the motion to process on S. 649.
“Today Senate Republicans and Democrats voted overwhelmingly to reject the shameful filibuster that attempted to deny Americans a vote on legislation that will reduce and prevent gun violence.
“Background checks are the first line of defense against criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from getting guns. That’s why the American people, gun owners, NRA members, and even many House Republicans support background checks.
“The bipartisan background check legislation that I will introduce and will be voted on in the Senate is enforceable, will save lives, and respects the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans. It’s time for Congress to act. The American people are getting a vote in the Senate. They deserve one in the House.”
After the Senate adjourned this evening, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) released the official language to the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act. This is the amendment that he and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) will submit to Sen. Chuck Schumer’s S. 649.
I’ve briefly scanned through it and have some preliminary observations.
First, the incentives to the states to provide more and better data to the NICS System looks to have been lifted in its entirety from Sec. 101 and 102 of Schumer’s S. 374.
Second, if you offer to sell a firearm using any forum, gun board, Facebook, Gunbroker,com, etc. OR any classified ad in a newspaper or free trading post paper, you must do a background check. From Section 122
(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on
the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to
transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm.
The bill does say offering to sell or exhibit your gun for sale in your private residence doesn’t constitute a gun show. Still, if you offered to sell it first on the Internet and completed the sale at home, a check would be required.
Third, while the dealer can substitute a CCW or FOID card for the NICS check, it still has to be done by a licensed dealer and a Form 4473 must be completed. Moreover, if I’m reading it correctly, substitution of the CCW for the NICS check would only apply if the Feds have certified it is equivalent. I know there are many states where the a CCW is not accepted in lieu of a NICS check.
Fourth, under Sec. 129 – Rule of Construction it states:
Nothing in this subtitle, or an amendment made by this subtitle, shall be construed-
(1)
to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those
made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof, or pursuant to an
advertisement, posting, display, or other listing on the Internet or in a
publication by the transferor of the intent of the transferor to
transfer, or the transferee of the intent of the transferee to acquire,
the firearm; or
(2) to extend background check requirements to
temporary transfers for purposes including lawful hunting or sporting or
to temporary possession of a firearm for purposes of examination or
evaluation by a prospective transferee.
I would still worry about so-called temporary transfers for purposes other than hunting or sporting purposes between non-family members. If you loaned a friend who was separated from an abusive spouse a gun for self-protection, it might be dicey.
Finally, the only part of the bill I like is that it makes knowingly violating the prohibition against a national gun registry an offense with a 15 year prison term.
UPDATE: Sebastian has a much more thorough analysis of the amendment here. I would make sure to read the comments as they also contain a lot of analysis.
In general, it seems to be upon reflection that requiring background checks for private sales conducted or arranged at gun shows or through the Internet or a publication is just one step away from universal background checks. All it would take to make it so would another amendment to the bill. The gun prohibitionists could make the argument, and in this case I’d consider it valid, if you are going to require background checks for a gun sold through a posting on an electronic bulletin board, why not require it for posting a notice on a cork bulletin board at work.
Sen. Mark Kirk (Rino-IL) is crediting booze and a yacht for smoothing an agreement on gun control.
Speaking to reporters about his work on firearm background checks and other gun-related legislation, the Illinois Republican told a gaggle of reporters that credit for bipartisan efforts in the Senate are in part thanks to visits to the Black Tie, a vessel that is partially owned by Sen. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va.
“You guys really ought to go out to National Harbor and see the Black Tie, which has been much of the reason for much of the bipartisan cooperation around here,” Kirk said.
Kirk said Sens. Kay Hagan, a North Carolina Democrat and Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, are frequent visitors. Asked about the menu at the gatherings, Kirk didn’t say much, though he indicated some booze might be consumed.
“Sometimes alcoholic beverages might be served and ties might … get loosened,” Kirk said.
Manchin described the yacht as “an old boat” in an interview with the Washington Post published today. He seemed a little surprised that they knew about it.
Ed O’Keefe: He said that you’re a one-eighth owner of a vessel that sits in National Harbor.
Manchin: “No, I’m not one-eighth. I’m a wee little small owner and have a generous partner. But you know what, it’s an older boat, it’s nice, we have a lot of fun.”
David A. Fahrenthold: Is it a yacht or pontoon?
Manchin: “No, it’s an older big boat. But we can get 10 or more senators and have a good time. And you know what? We can go float out there and you can’t find us.
“We go out on the Potomac. You build relationships. I’m doing everything I can to build relationships. I love to know my senator colleagues – Democrats and Republicans. Just trying to, I just know back home that’s what we do. Cheapest thing you can do is feed people.
Ed O’Keefe: Were any of the gun talks aboard The Black Tie?
Manchin: “We talk about everything. Everything. Everybody. You’d be surprised — and Mark will tell you that. Mark and I just kept getting, we’ve been good friends since day one and we kept getting closer and closer and closer. And we’d say, ‘Let’s invite so-and-so, you invite so-and-so and I’ll invite so-and-so.’
“And you know, just beer, pizza, whatever, just have a good time. But it was a way to break the ice, it was a way that we look forward to getting together. The boat’s not here now, but if we get it back, we’ll use it again.
The Black Tie is a little bit more than a “pontoon boat”. According to this article, Manchin bought the boat in partnership with another couple for $620,000 back in 2003. It is a 54 ft Sea Ray Sundancer 540. He and the other couple formed a Delaware corporation to own even though at the time he was Secretary of State for West Virginia. One of the current co-owners is former WV State Liquor Commissioner Dick Barber who was previously convicted on Federal charges of racketeering. Manchin’s people are denying that Barber is still an owner.
 |
| An example of a Sundancer 540 |
I guess the junior Senator from West Virginia is giving new meaning to trying to keep up with the Rockefellers.
The Senate approved the motion to proceed on S. 649 by a vote of 68-31. This means they will begin debating the issue. There had been talk of a fillibuster on this motion which evidently never materialized.
Voting for the motion to proceed were 16 Republicans while 2 Democrats voted against it.
Sixteen Republicans voted in favor of the motion, while two Democrats — both from states President Obama lost in the 2012 election, voted against it. The two Democrats were Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska) and Mark Pryor (Ark.), both of whom face reelection next year.
The sixteen Republicans who voted to proceed were Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Susan Collins (Maine). Bob Corker (Tenn.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Dean Heller (Nev.), John Hoeven (N.D.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), John McCain (Ariz.), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.).
I’m a bit surprised to see Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) on that list as he had agreed to fillibuster the bill earlier. If you’re a North Carolinian, a call to his office just might be in order.
From RollCall on the motion and S. 649.
Even before the roll was called, proponents of the most ambitious gun control package possible announced they had an agreement for an even more pivotal vote on Tuesday — on language embodying the bipartisan agreement, unveiled Wednesday, for expanding the reach of required background checks to cover customers at gun shows and online transactions, but not noncommercial sales. Background checks now are required only before sales at the country’s 55,000 licensed gun dealers.
The delay is because, knowing they were going to lose Thursday morning, the conservative orchestrators of the filibuster served notice they would insist on their right to delay the debate another 30 hours before any consideration of amendments could begin.
The outcome of the background check vote is still too far in the future to predict, and a huge wave of lobbying on both sides is sure to wash over middle-of-the road senators when they’re back in their home states this weekend. But the momentum seems to be with the authors of the compromise — Toomey and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin III — a sense undoubtedly reinforced by the solid bloc of GOP support for taking up the bill in the first place.
Watching the odious Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) on C-Span a little earlie, he said that they would be taking amendments in this probable order: Manchin-Toomey, AWB, magazine bans, and then it woud be open to other amendments. He also pled with opponents to not fillibuster each and every amendment.
Chris Cox of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action released an open letter to the Senate. In it he states that the NRA is “unequivocally opposed” to S. 649. He states that the NRA will oppose any and all attempts to extend background checks, to limit firearms and magazines, or to criminalize private transfers and/or sales. He specifically includes the proposals from Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey issued today.
Dear Senator,
I am writing regarding the National Rifle Association’s position on several firearms-related proposals under consideration in the Senate.
S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.
In addition, the NRA will oppose any amendments offered to S. 649 that restrict fundamental Second Amendment freedoms; including, but not limited to, proposals that would ban commonly and lawfully owned firearms and magazines or criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks. This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin, Pat Toomey and Chuck Schumer. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools. Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.
Rather than focus its efforts on restricting the rights of America’s 100 million law-abiding gun owners, there are things Congress can do to fix our broken mental health system; increase prosecutions of violent criminals; and make our schools safer. During consideration of S. 649, should one or more amendments be offered that adequately address these important issues while protecting the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners, the NRA will offer our enthusiastic support and consider those votes in our future candidate evaluations as well.
We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools. Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.
Should you have any questions on these issues, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 651-2560.
Sincerely,
Chris W. Cox
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has weighed in on universal background checks. Given the higher incidence of crime by mayors associated with MAIG than that of lawful gun owners, Alan Gottlieb makes the suggestion that we should be doing background checks on politicians instead of gun owners.
BELLEVUE, WA – “If politicians want universal background checks, we should start with them,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.He pointed to recent political scandals in the New York Legislature, which just passed a new restrictive gun control law, where a state senator and state assemblyman were arrested last week, as “one small example.”
“But look at politics in recent years,” Gottlieb observed. “From state and federal scandals, to arrests involving several members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, we have had example after embarrassing example of public officials being charged with violating various laws. Does anyone think former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who had to quit his post over a lewd e-mail scandal, should clear a mental health screening to buy a gun?
“If you compare percentages,” he continued, “the rate of criminal activity by politicians is probably far higher than the rate of crimes committed by the general public.
“What this underscores,” he said, “is the reason gun laws don’t work and never will. People who make the laws we have to live under break them anyway, just like criminals routinely disobey gun laws. Based on their own experience, politicians should know that the gun laws they pass will not prevent crime.”
Gottlieb pointed to crooks like former Louisiana Congressman Bill Jefferson, sent to prison after authorities found $90,000 in his freezer during an investigation. He cited former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, now in prison for racketeering and extortion.
“It is both sad and disgraceful that the list goes on and on,” Gottlieb said. “There are politicians with domestic violence problems, others who accepted bribes, some who stole money or were involved in other criminal acts.
“No wonder citizens are disgusted with politicians and don’t trust them,” he concluded, adding tongue-in-cheek, “And these people want to know why there’s a run on guns and ammunition?”
The Gun Owners of America was even less kind to Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) than the NRA-ILA. They called it a sellout that was worse than the “Feinstein gun ban”. I’m not sure I’d agree on that but it most certainly is not the panacea envisioned by the good senators.
GOA is calling the bill the “See a Shrink, Lose your Guns” bill. Their release is below:
Urgent action required. It is urgent that every gun owner call their Senators today and demand that they oppose the “See a Shrink, Lose your Guns” sell-out bill that is being authored by Senators Pat Toomey (R) and Joe Manchin (D) – but which also has Chuck Schumer’s fingerprints all over it. Call immediately at 202-224-3121.See a Shrink, Lose your Guns. The anti-gun “ranters” have spent the last week telling us that Republican Senators can’t filibuster Harry Reid’s gun control bill; that they can’t cut off debate to a bill they haven’t seen yet. “Let the bill come up,” they say. “We need to see the bill” before Senators can vote against cloture to proceed to it.
Well, we’ve seen the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer sell-out, and it’s worse than the Feinstein gun ban, which will reportedly be tied to it and offered simultaneously in a Senate procedure known as an “amendment tree.”
Toomey and Manchin will claim that their bill only covers “gun show sales” and Internet sales. But if you’ve ever talked about your gun and /or let it be known you’d like to sell or buy a gun on the Internet, this language covers you. If you advertise your gun in the church bulletin and the bulletin is put on the Internet, you’re covered.
The only exemption is for sales that are sold exclusively by word of mouth. The increased number of background checks would likely exacerbate the system breakdowns (inherent to NICS) which have shut down gun shows over and over again. It would mean that Americans who were illegally denied firearms because their names were similar to other people’s would effectively be barred from owning a gun. (We would never tolerate such delays for voting rights or other freedoms that we are guaranteed.)
And for those Republicans who think they’re going to be able to offer their useless amendments, guess what? Reid is reportedly going to use a procedure to block out all amendments (called an “amendment tree”). And there are plenty of Senators standing in line to make sure that the Senate doesn’t give “unanimous consent” to let those Republicans offer their amendments.
So if you live in a rural area, you’re effectively barred from selling or buying a gun – or it at least becomes very, very difficult.
Incidentally, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer “national registry” language is full of holes. There will be a national gun registry as a result of this sell-out.
But that’s not the worst part. Under an amendment in the bill to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), you could have your guns taken away because your private shrink thinks you’re “dangerous” and could send your name directly to the FBI Instant Check system.
Did you think it was terrible that 150,000 military veterans had been added into the NICS system because they’d seen a VA shrink about their PTSD? Well guess what? Now it’s going to happen to the rest of the population … by the millions!
And the next step, of course, will be to begin to sue psychiatrists that don’t send every single patient’s name to the Instant Check system, and to make sure that their lives are ruined if they don’t send a patient to NICS and anything goes wrong.
The bottom line: “See a shrink; lose your guns.”
All of this will reportedly be on an amendment tree with the Feinstein gun ban and magazine bans.
Repeal of gun owner protections. In addition, Toomey no doubt unintentionally agreed to repeal one of the most important protections for gun owners that was included in the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Act – the provision that would allow you to take an unloaded, locked-up gun through states like New York without being stopped. Under a new subsection (c), the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer bill would require you to “demonstrate” to the satisfaction of New York police where you were coming from and where you are going to. And, if you don’t do that to their satisfaction, they can arrest you.
Please keep in mind, nothing in this bill would have stopped Newtown dirtbag from killing his mother and taking the firearms that she owned and perpetrating the horrible crimes that he committed.
Nothing is this bill would actually make children safer at schools. There is nothing that will actually keep bad guys from stealing or illegally acquiring guns, but there’s plenty that will threaten our gun rights!
ACTION: Contact your two senators immediately. Tell them the “see a shrink; lose your guns” sellout is even worse than the Feinstein gun ban which will reportedly be on the same amendment tree with it. Distribute this alert far and wide.
Time is short, so if you call – at 202-224-3121 – you may click below to see the pre-written letter and use the contents to help direct your comments.
Click here to send your Senators a prewritten email message.
by